User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/13

Beatles genre
Quick question about the Beatles genre issue. I know it's been discussed ad nauseam, but would you say it's a bad idea to make this edit to the article infobox (a seperation of "genre" and "style")? I know that many people would probably argue that the Beatles are equally pop and rock, but:
 * 1) According to Wikipedia itself, and many outside sources, pop music isn't a genre, but rather a blanket term for mainstream music (there are, however, various genres of mainstream/non classical music, which includes rock, R&B etc);
 * 2) According to Allmusic, the Beatles' genre is Rock (though it's the mainstream/pop style, along with various other styles).

I can see many advantages, including added precision. Also, the "genre" field will allow for generality, while the style field would list the various inflections of the particular genre performed by the band. Also consider that the "musical styles" field does not list any genre not discussed in the intro of the article, so there should be no dispute. And Finally, everything is sourced from a comprehensive music database.

I don't know a lot about the Beatles article, or the issues it has had regarding this issue, so I'll take your word for it. Thumbs up, or thumbs down? One editor has already disagreed, it seems, (see article history), but they're more blind reversions than considerate ones. Oran e (talk)  07:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My initial thinking is that it's easier to be terse and general; for one thing, once we start specifying more detailed genres and styles, people will come along and think "Oh, why isn't XXXX listed here", and add it. Before long, the list gets hopelessly long. It's arguable for The Beatles that out of several hundred songs, you would have very nearly that many genres/styles. The White Album is a case in point. My experience of watching consensus develop on that article is that it takes ages, out of proportion to the text being discussed. So I'd be inclined to say "Less is more". -- Rodhull andemu  21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with belligerent user
Hello Rodhullandemu, I contacted you a long time ago about being helped with a user who was harassing me outside of wikipedia. This was resolved very quickly and effiently and I thank you for it which is why I am coming to you once again for help. User:Swampfire has been consistently making bad faith edits to the article Forrest Griffin. At one point he was removing information that was referenced by four different sources from official sites. Bitter over being shown wrong, he has been spamming my talk page and giving me unwarranted "warnings". He tried to warn me over breaking the 3 revert rule policy because I reverted recent vandalism on Forrest Griffin where someone blanked the page. This would have fallen under an exception to the rule but he seems not to understand any of the policies he is stating. He spouted off over half a dozen policies but other users have agreed with me on this subject. Can you please make this user leave me alone? --Xander756 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a warning on his talk page. If he starts off again, please let me know. -- Rodhull andemu  21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems he has not heeded your warning. He recruited another user to his cause and believes that if him and one other person agree that they have reached a "consensus". Using older references than the ones currently on the page they tried to "update" it and remove the current information. I requested admin arbitration and he replied there saying it was resolved and no longer needed so I don't think an admin will help us if you don't. You might not know much about mixed martial arts but please review this and help me here. He is trying to hide information that he does not like insisting that a fight decision was not controversial when I have provided references from the biggest mixed martial arts site as well as several others. The entire MMA world was aflame when this decision came down so it is a very strange thing to say it was not controversial. I guess you could consider this a request for a 3rd opinion. --Xander756 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey I am sorry to bother you again but I really need an administrator to help with the Forrest Griffin article. My appeal to have an admin arbitration has gone unnoticed for days, my request to have the page protected because of an edit war somehow got deleted and it seems that User:Swampire is not going to stop. --Xander756 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you actually look into things, you will see he has been going to a bunch of admins pages trying to state the same stuff which isn't true. In fact most of them have ruled against him and everytime they do, He goes to another ones page and asks for help, as if noone can see. Also, I also found a new personal attack on me here yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me. In fact I can provude plenty of links to other misbehavior. In fact this matter is already on the admin board of incidents with an admin taking care of it. But if you check once that admin started ruling against him. he refused to accept it, and started going to other adminsSwampfire (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs)

3RR
I had posted on one of the pages that if his 4th was to revert a blanking that he did not break 3RR. But that still has not stopped him ignoring other policies and making personal attacks. Also if you check almost every post I made to his talkpage was in response to him posting on mine. Until he broke WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL which i had warned him for.Swampfire (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Links to these personal attacks, please? Meanwhile, I'd advise all parties to take a breather and chill. Two wrongs do not make a right. -- Rodhull andemu  22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be right back with them. As they are hiden in his talkpage after he removed the warning. Also what I had removed went against several policies, and as stated in those policies, does not require a consensus to remove. I'll brb with the attacks.Swampfire (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here in the discussion and here  in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. In the first one he calls me a fool, the after i placed a warning on his page while he was removing it, he said what i was doing by placing the warning, was spamming his page and i was childish. Both were unprovoked personal attacks.Swampfire (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that all? Whilst I accept that "fool" is arguably a personal attack, it's hardly threatening, and WP:NPA has some good advice about how to react to that sort of thing: with a dignified silence. As for the second, I think he had every right to be offended. WP:DTTR explains why your templating is considered rude. I think it's time everyone found something better to do for a while. -- Rodhull andemu  22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all. It is not a matter of is that all? The fact he did it at all breaks WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA and it does not have to be threatening. Also you try to cite this DTTR well you as an admin should know that an essay page does not negate a policy if it did it would be written into the policy.Swampfire (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop Wikilawyering. Not every breach of a policy demands a sanction and in exercising my discretion, I decided that in the circumstances one would be pointless and even vindictive. As for DTTR, good advice is good advice wherever it comes from. I suggest you stay away from User:Xander's talk page and discuss the relevant article on its talk page. If the two of you can't agree on sourcing for the Forrest Griffin and Quinton Jackson decision, WP:3O is your next step. Probably better than being blocked for edit-warring and disruption. -- Rodhull andemu  22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: email
Great, thanks for taking a look at it. :) I guess it isn't all that silly then, but I'm still expecting my passport to be looked on twice if I'm visiting the UK! :D -- aktsu (t / c) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
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. Ralbot (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
 A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Hey
Hey, how are you?

91.109.49.77 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer
It's a pity that this was removed from Video Killed the Radio Star. The official line-up of Buggles was Trevor Horn and Geoff Downes. For the recording of Video Killed the Radio Star there was session work on vocals by Debi Doss and Linda Jardim, and keyboards by Hans Zimmer. All three can be seen in the video. The question is not whether this is correct, but how to source it. Is this OK? -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Linda Jardim! How many people remember "Sixty Miles by Road or Rail" now? I'd say the reference is as reliable as we can get, so no problem if it goes in with this as a source. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At 2:57 in the video, Zimmer is shown standing in front of a modular Moog synthesizer. There is a screenshot of this in Hans Zimmer (a better picture of a Moog modular is at ). It is an interesting piece of Zimmer trivia that he appears in this video.  There is also an interview with Zimmer fresh out today on the BBC website at . -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting
One of the downsides of being an admin (or at least, it would be for me) is having people always ask you, can you delete this page, can you delete that page? Well, um...could you delete this page? ;-) It's redundant now that I changed my system (I like the little pluses and stars on top of my user page), so I'd be thankful if you could delete it. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo ) (Me did that ) 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's actually an upside since it doesn't involve any controversy or drama. But it's gone anyway. -- Rodhull andemu  15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

my talkpage
you chose to get involved with a discussion on my talkpage a few days ago over and editor and his actions. Well the page was rewriten by another editor to place the page appropriately, And now that user is back to reverting work, That has been disproved along with the valid sirces citing as such. And I had avoided his talkpage, but just as i said he would do. He returned to mine to try and start thing again. This time not just going against me but another highly valued editor on the subject.Swampfire (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest I lock the page down for 72 hours while the three of you seek a third opinion, because it seems pretty clear you ain't gonna reach agreement between yourselves. -- Rodhull andemu  18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you revert it to Aktsu's edit before doing so, because he is the one that wrote it. And he did it to include all sides in an encyclopedic maaner. Of which Xander just refuses to accept.Swampfire (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because if you read the differences between the 2 you will se Aktsu's is more encyclopedic, along with the fact the Xander removed valid citations that goes completely against what he was stating in an effort to hide them.Swampfire (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot revert before protecting; that way I am judging content, and I am not qualified or permitted to do that. Take a look at the link from WP:WRONG on that one. That's why you have one last chance to sort it out between yourselves. -- Rodhull andemu  18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has done been tried. With Aktsu placing the page at a NPOV in an ecyclopedic manner. But Xander refuses to accept things.Swampfire (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Aktsu has since had second thoughts about his edit that Swampfire continues to tote. The fact he is attempting to pass Aktsu off as his unwitting ally in this is very disturbing. Please see the discussion page on Forrest Griffin for details. --Xander756 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also found a third and new personal attack on me here yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me. You asked me to stay away from him and I did, and yet he refuses to let things go, and stop attacking. This thing goes far deeper than you now now as other admins have joined in. He jusy refuses to stop. In fact one admin asked him to please go away, because he just keeps on and on.Swampfire (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who told me to go away? --Xander756 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it in the edit summaries on your talkpage by Hersfold it stated (go away) if he was referring to something else I dont know, but it was there. That still does not discount you trying to use admins against each other. I am pretty sure there is a policy against it. The whole mommy said NO so i'll go to daddy thing.Swampfire (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit note was on him reverting someone who vandalized my page with vulgarity three times that he ended up blocking. Curious why you would try to distort that while lying to people on here. I am not trying to pit admins against each other, I am trying to draw you to their attention. --Xander756 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol
I don't suppose you could reorganize any vacations you have planned according to when MJ is put on the main page. I think I could do with the extra support, rumor has it that semi protection is removed when an article becomes the days featured piece. Oh the joy. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vacation? Vacations are for wimps! -- Rodhull andemu  18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also find this interesting, the nomination was withdrawn, I think it needs closing. Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination). — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Leave it with me. -- Rodhull andemu  18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheer, you might also want to but the article on your watchlist Honorific titles in popular music. There is a lot of WP:POINTY activity going on. Someone nominated it for deletion again, I just reverted, it's getting absurd. See the talk page, people are just nominating it continually without break. Alternatively we can just all bury our heads in the sand. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since he left this edit on the talk page, I honestly don't think he has good faith, but that's just my opinion. :-)— Realist 2  ( Speak ) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I was the person who nominated it for deletion the first time, I'm certainly not loving the article, but if it's here to stay we may as well make the most of it. The sad thing is, this editor is acting in good faith, but he is making his own article worse, giving people even more reason to delete. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone that would be interested in making an Audio version of the Michael Jackson article, much like the Obama article? — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be useful if it's going to make it to the next educational CD/DVD that we issue; but I'm not so familiar with how these things are done. I'd volunteer but it's a dead cert that my voice wouldn't be up to it; can you follow the links from the Obama to the project that does this stuff? Meanwhile, Martinez needs focussing on the theme of the Honorifics article, and it's good that he's accepted the removal of the "Notes" section; a deadly kiss, if you like, but try to cut him some slack; it's his pet and he's received some stick for it. To keep with it, in the circumstances, is creditable, and if the article can be kept free of irrelevant material and, frankly, fancruft, it might have some merit. Problem is that I see it as always being a target for deletionists on the grounds of indiscriminacy; personally, I think that sort of article is just what we should be doing, because you won't find it anywhere else, and our standards make sure that it's properly sourced. It surely can't be original research to to write an article to fulfil what would otherwise be achieved by a mere category, can it? Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to look into it, for some reason I think it should be a female voice over a male voice, not sure why. As for Martinez, yeah, your right, but I feel like he isn't taking good advise, he seems oblivious. I know there are people sharpening their knives for that article, it won't be long before there is another nomination. I gave him a list of web links that needed changing, if he can get those corrected then he stands a chance of long term stability. I'm going to continue to revert poorly sourced and unsourced material strongly, otherwise it will turn into that "List of the worlds best selling artists" article, which should be burnt and started from scratch IMHO.— Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something spiritual that I can't pin down tells me you're right about a female voice for the spoken version of the Michael Jackson article, and only two spring to mind- Joanna Lumley and Fenella Fielding, which is somewhat bizarre since neither is particularly appropriate, image-wise. For the Honorifics article, grief, I only closed its second Afd yesterday! Give the guy a chance, but he needs guidance, not pressure, he's had enough of that. I'd say you've put your cards fully on the table, but should back off a little and give him some space. You and I are lucky (is that the right word?) in being here all but 24/7. He probably has to fit it in where he can. I will resist pressure on him to "work like a nigger" to get it up to scratch, but he knows that he is under that pressure to make it a viable article. A week, I think, would be the minimum. -- Rodhull andemu  23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, it will take him about 10 days to sort out those web links only. I've seen people talking and I know people (who I won't name) are probably preparing a long essay for the 3rd RfD on why the article is doomed to fail. I expect plenty of Bad Faith nominations to be made every week or so, I feel reluctant to revert them because I'm probably not allowed (I already did once). — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking of bad faith nominations, Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson. Can you believe this nomination was made by an Admin? I've considered taking this to the admin noticeboard, it was clearly done in either bad faith or was highly unprofessional. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus so far seems to indicate that it's a worthy article, despite the title; I wouldn't sweat it. People tend to latch on to minor things; panic ye not. -- Rodhull  andemu  00:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's got enough people telling him where they think he's going wrong. He needs time to get the article up to scratch, and I'm prepared to give him that time, to the point where an Afd in the next seven days I am likely to snow-close as too soon and arguably an bad-faith nom. Articles do not happen overnight, particularly in the face of resistance to the very premise of the article. If he can take it beyond mere fancruft to a disinterested, dispassionate, article, fine; losing the "Notes" was a good move forward, because it focussed Martinez on the article he was intending to write, and is defensible in policy terms. It may not end up being the greatest article we have, but it's not without any merit either. -- Rodhull andemu  23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source
I'm of the opinion that this is not a reliable source for the Lisa Marie Presley article. I'm not familiar with the source so I didn't want to remove it right off, but it looks home made. Thoughts? — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we don't have a clue who's writing it, and Tripod is one of those sites like Geocities where you get a free page and can put what you like on it, within reason. I wouldn't trust it as reliable. She could have copied it all from some dreadful tabloid rag for all we know. Or just made it up. -- Rodhull andemu  01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock 88.109.128.0/18 my IP
Thanks (Butters x (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
 * It's an anon-only block, you should have no problem editing as long as you are logged in. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Other people use my computor who do not have accounts. Please un-block. (Butters x (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
 * The range is due to unblock later this evening, but I might as well do it now. Tiscali are being utterly stupid about blocking the offending account for the time being, but if it comes back I will have to block individual IPs until they get the message. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Rodhull andemu  15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Butters x (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Abbey Road (album)
The reason Richard Starkey was listed by his full name in the composer column is because George Harrison was also listed by his full name in the same column above Starkey's. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support. Im trying to make the best of it whether its stays or gets deleted. This is my second article since list of best selling remix albums, but I'll have that one at least lol. I'll try harder to make it better. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I read what you said on my talk page thank you. Out of curiousity could you change the title to list of titles in popular music which would completely take away the honorifics. Honorifics was definatly not my idea. My original page was called Popular Music Royality . Realist(talk to Me) was the one behind the idea but Technophat thought of that title(Check out the articles talk page). Besides the point. I never liked the honorific title but I let it stick because didnt know how to redirect to a new page. If not notable, perhaps the title can be transitioned into Special titles In popular music. Though this article stands for a great debate, especially on the AFDs prior, I would still wish that getting rid of the honorific might ease down a small portion of the debate but I think its very worth it. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be called "Royality" for the obvious reason that none of them belong to a royal family. Not even the Jackson's. :-) — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya royality was not a good idea but I still think the title should just be changed for possible existence purposes of the page. Its a minor thing. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Godfathers
Source it in the honorifics article, too. That way it can stay. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB
Hi, there are three requests waiting at WT:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, when you have a moment. Cheers, MSGJ (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Rodhull andemu  13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic wikipedia
No arab (sunni) like what i'm writting, u think a consensus will emerge? though it's easy to find out my references, in the Interwikis (it seems for u, a kind of original study) hmm, i'll see, i'll put the edit wars perhaps, better for now. regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
To keep you updated:. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

People v. Jackson
OMG, this article needs burning and starting from scratch! It's terrible. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 16:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, up to a point; it's a shed and needs surgery. Wholly unsourced and irrelevant paragraphs about the Arvizos which have nothing to do with the trial, for one thing. I'll take a look at it maybe later. -- Rodhull andemu  16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was evidence used against them in the trial, it was technically part of his defense, the families character and past behavior . But generally specking it needs nuking and rewriting. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 16:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Rod
As much as I wouldn't like to say this, in reality, I'm a sockpuppet of Maxim. Yes, I confess it all - I've been sockpuppeteering for over a year now, and coordinating vandalism and helping ethnic POV-pushers. I guess I may as well come clean, and here I am.--IWF Patroller (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. Trolling is only amusing up to a certain point, beyond which it fails dismally, but thanks for letting me know. -- Rodhull andemu  00:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Death Threat
An IP gave JzG a death threat here. Can you block the IP for a long time and look at the ANI thread? Thanks, Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked six months. Thanks for letting me know. -- Rodhull andemu  11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No thank you. Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LOGANA
It's a disruptive WP:SPA, but I wouldn't call it WP:VANDALISM-only. I think a checkuser to see if it's a bad-hand sock of SA might be worthy of consideration.... No objection to the block, just the reason. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he appeared to me late last night (actually it was early this morning) and did not seem to be stopping, hence the block. User:Jehochman has already raised an WP:RFCU which came up as "Unlikely". Nevertheless, we are better off without him. -- Rodhull andemu  17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's another WP:SOCK good faith editor appearing at WP:ANI. Expect complaints from him, and suggest removing this section.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you Archive this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Blair Plase, it's going no were and i have asked for it be Archived because it really needs it, but my request has been ignored totally. Sorry if you not the person i should ask. but that talk page is getting out of hand.(Butters x (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I'll take a look at it, but I see a note that previous conversations have been deleted. This is not good. Although they're in the edit history, they should be readily accessible for reference. Leave it with me. -- Rodhull andemu  20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (Butters x (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

WP:SYNTH
- What is to be done about these recurring instances of this? Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen this editor adding dubiously sourced information on more than one occasion; problem is that I'm not an expert on this topic, nor wish to become one. I have enough to do. Meanwhile, I'll revert and tell him to take it to the talk page. -- Rodhull andemu  00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good, just that, as you acknowledge, this has been a recurring problem for some time now. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of his edits; some of his more outrageous assertions, I have reverted. The others will require, probably, an RFC. I'm a little surprised that others haven't pitched in, but when it comes down to the line, he is providing sources. My take is that if he were really going overboard, we would be looking at a full-on edit war. On the other hand, a battleground that most people have deserted, through exhaustion, if nothing else, can be a fertile ground for anyone else to come along and insert their stuff, and that is what I think is happening here. -- Rodhull andemu  00:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for protecting The Beatles. Espoo has no source that clearly verifies spelling it "the Beatles". He's simply pulling up websites that carelessly spell it both ways. I gave him a link to a different page on The Beatles' website that spells it "The Beatles". Ward3001 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you were about to hit WP:3RR and I've probably protected the wrong version; but it's clear this needs more eyes. A short cool-down is probably in order. -- Rodhull andemu  00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I wouldn't have gone past three reverts. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry George
Thanks for your comments. I am completely baffled by the arguments being put on the other side.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies.
I'm very sorry if I violated any wikipedia rules in my Comment on James May. I am new to wikipedia, however this won't happen again. Thanks also for alerting me to the fact that your not allowed to post opinionated views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator125 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK, it happens a lot. But we are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsham defence
Nice improvement to that article. Must have taken a fair bit of research. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, work still in progress. -- Rodhull andemu  22:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)-- Rodhull  andemu  22:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going a little to far in your policing
I don't understand why you feel it necessary to completely remove a reference to something that backed up with evidence, rather than just editing it.

As for this evidence, I still don't know why you're treating it as "not free of copyright". We can all appreciate that a Youtube clip of a TV show is breaking copyright. However this is clearly a fan filmed video of talk given at a fan convention. Fan conventions are there for people to take their own videos of panel discussions, providing they respect the fact they're not allowed to film any video footage that might be presented during them.

The fact that this person documented some notable people from the UK comedy scene discussing the issue of another member of that scene having been unkind in their writing, to persons within this field that they have worked with before, is worthy of inclusion. To try and stamp it down and dismiss it due to an assumed copyright violation, could come across to some as suppression of the facts.

StuntRaceFX (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you'd be good enough to point me to where the fan who took that video has released rights to its use that would satisfy our requirements. If they have, fine. On the other, for us to describe what is shown or said on the video is arguably original research, particularly the described whispering exchange; we cannot read anything into that without knowledge of the full facts. Finally, WP:BLP requires us to be particularly careful when sourcing negative information about people, and I regard "cast-iron" as being a good starting point when looking at sources. If protecting the Wikimedia Foundation from allegations of copyright theft and defamation is "policing", then that's what I'm here for. -- Rodhull  andemu  10:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson image
Hi, I was wondering if you could point me to the discussion you were referring to, since I couldn't find it in any of the recent archives. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-08-7 06:53

Re: Banksy and graffiti.
Please stop deleting my comments regarding this.

I have been a part of the graffiti culture for over 20 years and do not consider, as do all of my contempories, Banksy or any stencil artist to be anything related to the graffiti subculture, despite what the media would have you believe. He is not, and never has been involved and it's time people realised this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.104.54 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting content from our articles which source reliably that Banksy is considered a graffiti artist is vandalism, whatever you and your crew think of him. I've reverted your edits yet again, and invite you to discuss this with other editors on the article talk page. That's how we do things here, and if you don't want to participate like that, well, we don't need your input. -- Rodhull andemu  13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I done something I will regret
Hmm, I nominated a number of articles (at least 6) in the MJ wikiproject for deletion because they were truly not noteworthy. Anyway, people are voting to merge some of them to the MJ article. Thus a load of POV, unsourced, not very important info is probably going to be lumped on the MJ article. I'm crying on the inside. I really wanted to clean out the Wikiproject and delete totally pointless articles, I won't nominate more if this is what happens. — Realist  2  19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't worry about it; I'd see first if they get deleted or merged, and if merged, make sure only the sourced, NPOV material gets merged. You can always delete the dodgy content after it's been merged, although the MJ article is already large. -- Rodhull andemu  20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I will remove any crappy material and leave it on the talk page to sort through later. — Realist  2  20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think Honorific titles in popular music might be worth semi protecting? Maintaining it seems like more effort that it's worth at the moment. It's such a pov attractor. Also the creator hasn't been doing much editing recently. — Realist  2  23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not under vandalism attacks, it all looks like good-faith edits to me by people who don't seem to get the idea of the article. Just delete anyone whose references do not justify the honorific; you might want to leave a note to its creator to see if he's still interested, but we all own it now. It'll probably die down in due course. -- Rodhull andemu  23:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on in there!
Greetings Rodhullandemu - just thought I noticed a touch of not-quite-sure-what in one of your recent edits. Just want you to know there are many of us out here who greatly appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. Stay-out-of-the-sun regards, --Technopat (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cancel my last! Sorry, I misread the edit and thought that you were saying something that you weren't. It's been a long hot day here! This-message-will-self-destruct-at-the-next-full-moon regards, --Technopat (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road and Scaruffi
You're right, I'm wrong. Scaruffi has been ok'd. Thanks for pointing that out. Pity, though. If you knew this guy (I do) you'd know he claims to be an expert on a great many things (as in big consulting dollars), and is not at all shy about self-advertising.

Let me ask, though, who decides which of the many music review sources should go in the infobox? How many is a reasonable number? 67.169.127.21 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scaruffi, being a self-published source has faults; however, he does give reasoned reviews, and unlike some of the reviewers for major media concerns, cannot be said to be in anyone's pocket. Christgau, for example, on occasion gives extremely terse reviews with which the reader is given little chance to agree or disagree with his reasoning. Scaruffi may be somewhat conservative in his reviews, but if you take that into account, I say he's just as good as anyone. As for how many reviews should be in an infobox, ISTR the guideline is "less than ten", although I'd regard anything over five as being unnecessary. Scaruffi also has the advantage of giving reviews for many albums that others ignore. As long as people realise his limitations, I see no reason not to use his reviews; after all, WP:NPOV means we do not tell our readers what to think; we point them to the information and let them make up their own minds. Hope that helps. -- Rodhull andemu  00:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It helps very much, thank you. There's much sentimental attachment to all this, isn't there? Abbey Road has pleasant associations for me, and I'm willing to overlook "faults". Scaruffi isn't, I guess. But then, there are the associations I have with Scaruffi...lol. 67.169.127.21 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Our Pointy Friend is Back
They never learn. — Realist  2  15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry George
Actually, it's quite reasonable. If you mentioned George to anyone, they'd say "Jill Dando", and most of the information in the George article is actually re-iterated in the Dando article. Most of the stuff about the previous convictions seem to be from the story he sold to the papers, and don't really confer notability outside of Dando's murder. WP:BLP1E gives a bit of guidance, saying that we should cover the event, not the person, for people only notable for one thing. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, George is noted for his several appeals too which could not be properly covered in the Jill Dando article as they'd be irrelevant there but not in his. Let's redirect Adolf Hitler to World War II on that basis, shall we? If you'll excuse me, the pubs are shut and the vandals are coming out of the woodwork again. -- Rodhull andemu  22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch Godwin on that. Oh, and Hitler was himself a coveted soldier in World War I and a famous political dissident in the interwar period. That much you get taught in secondary school. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't see how Godwin's Law applies, and I'm not sure what "coveted" means here. But a quick look tells me that Sion Jenkins redirects but Michael Stone (murderer) doesn't. Leave it with me. -- Rodhull andemu  22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're comparing a low-profile murderer to one of the most famous historical political leaders. And by coveted, I may have inadvertently used the wrong word, but I meant that, in his military career during WWI, he was awarded the Iron Cross, at least. Sceptre (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Girls Aloud speculation
Do you recon it could be grounds for semi-protection? It seems to be mostly anonymous users that are coming along and adding nonsense about possible future singles and the next album. [Jam] [talk] 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that, but it's good-faith, even though misguided. Still disruptive, however. I'll give it a week. BTW, looks like WJH1992 came back this afternoon, and I've blocked another range. Usual email to Tiscali. -- Rodhull andemu  21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK re GA, and thanks for the heads up re WJH. Seems he and Tiscali still aren't getting the message...  [Jam] [talk] 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You decided to go for it then? :)  [Jam] [talk] 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, needs to cool off for a while. -- Rodhull andemu  22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Re WJH, was he using an IP or username? My script isn't showing up any activity on the currently logged IPs...  [Jam] [talk] 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WJH was using 88.110.75.125, and I note his unblock request said "I haven't done anything how could I I've been away thanks", which explains his inactivity over the last week. It's plainly him. -- Rodhull andemu  22:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)r
 * Ah. So much for thinking that Tiscali had done anything useful... *rolleyes*  [Jam] [talk] 07:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion/D.S. (song) after spending some time on it with another editor I withdraw my nomination. The article has potential now and is well sourced. — Realist  2  19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed as Keep -- Rodhull andemu  19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanx Rod, the article started off as 2KB of unsourced poo but it's now 9KB and well sourced, deletion would be bad for the community. — Realist  2  19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Arabic Wikipedia
Hi Rodhullandemu, as you know in this talk page there have been alot of talk between stayfi and others (including me) and parts of this talk were just attacks on arabic wiki and its admins and other parts were not related to the article at all, i wonder if you can delete these parts in this page in your free time (an example is the talk about the admin osamak in restricted 2 section, another one is the part that i have just deleted and was written by an ip). thank you --Osm agha (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Osm Agha, I see you deleted the recent comments. What I think we should do is archive those irrelevant bits so they remain visible if needed. As for Stayfi, I have taken some steps to deter him from posting again, and hope they work. Leave it with me. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you very much --Osm agha (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
i don't think that the harmless edits that i made should be considered "vandalism" since like you said any user can easily remove them immediately after i create them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav wiki tay (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely irrelevant. You shouldn't have made them in the first place, particularly the second. You should read this policy, preferably before you get blocked indefinitely. This is an encyclopedia, not a kiddies' playground. -- Rodhull andemu  00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

power hungry huh?
locking an article over a minor edit? Whatever. They put more about Miley Cyrus's questionable pics in her profile than you allow here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.222.84 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. But this is a responsible encyclopedia, where trash like that is unwelcome. -- Rodhull andemu  23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I reverted a recent questionable edit this IP made on Bono. I then noticed that he made a similar edit a few days ago and that you had blocked him immediately after that. Shortly after I reverted him today, you blocked him again. This IP now has 2 edits and 2 blocks without having received any sort of a warning beforehand. Is there something this editor has done under a different IP or a registered account that I don’t know about? Or do you really feel that these blocks were justified because I must admit that I feel that these blocks are somewhat harsh and severe.

Thanks.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This guy has been doing this for at least several weeks. He's had all the warnings on different IPs, and on tr:wiki. -- Rodhull andemu  16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts
I'm not sure if you still have the "Honorific titles for farm-yard animals" article on your watchlist, but I've left a suggestion on the talk page, aimed at cutting down fan cruft. Thoughts/response welcome. — Realist  2  16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Neston Park
has started a new article for Neston Park, in Corsham parish, that may interest you. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. -- Rodhull andemu  13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of UFO organizations
Hi, just want a neutral eye and third opinion regarding the article List of UFO organizations. This version was full of external links to local ufo organizations and I removed the links per WP:NOTLINK since the organizations did not have coverage in reliable sources. The removal of the links resulted in this version. Do you think the name of the organizations I removed should be brought back?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, my first impression is that the lead should set out some objective criteria for inclusion to avoid WP:NOT being (a) an indiscriminate collection of information and (b) just a list of external links. Per WP:UNDUE, I think we should stick with organisations that have some scientific basis and avoid "cranky" ones (e.g. the "we are all descended from Venusians" type). Third-party references are certainly useful in establishing criteria for inclusion. As for the layout, I've never thought it useful for us to contain zero information, so empty sections should be deleted until some qualifying organisations are found for those areas; and the location maps tend to overwhelm the sections in any case. Haven't looked at the deleted organisations, but I'd fix the criteria first; certainly the approach you've already taken seems fair. Hope that helps, and come back to me if you've any queries. -- Rodhull andemu  13:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is a disagreement over this in Talk:List of UFO organizations with User:Vufors where he insists on bringing the links back. I opposed his action.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills
I put her in the music section (McCartney connection) of GA reviews, but I think I should have put her (well, anywhere really) in the Theatre, film and drama section, as it includes Actors, models, performers and celebrities. Would I be out of line to put her in the Theatre list (in the right timeline) or do I have to put her at the bottom and start again? I say this because she's been in the Music section for a long time, and may not get reviewed.--andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * She's not notable as a musician, so I wouldn't have put here there. I'd be cheeky and move the nom into the "Celebs" section with a suitable edit summary, keeping the timesig. I doubt if anyone would complain, that would seem a bit petty to me. -- Rodhull andemu  16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank thee, Oh, honoured and special Michael Parkinson guest.--andreasegde (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Michael Parkinson? Oh, got it. Bit slow today, sorry. -- Rodhull  andemu  15:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my userpage. Take care! Ann Stouter (talk)
 * No prob. I'm not going to put up with that for one minute. -- Rodhull  andemu  00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Feels odd seeing a major publication steal my research
They could have at least credited me. — Realist  2  23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had a quick skim of it, but that's GFDL for you. They should really have credited the 'pedia and I wouldn't blame you if you posted to their blog saying that. Journalists tend to be lazy most of the time. -- Rodhull andemu  23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I left an official statement on the MJ talk page. — Realist  2  00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now showing at User Talk:Jimbo Wales too. -- Rodhull andemu  00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hide under a table. — Realist  2  00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's fine to be proud of one's work, and good to get credit for it, but legally, you've given it away. The Times ain't gonna give you a red cent for it, or even a word. That's why working here is so... rewarding. Isn't it? -- Rodhull andemu  00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, yeah, rewarding, they really should have added wikipedia somewhere. — Realist  2  00:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd question, but I'm really not the best person to judge
As I'm sure your aware the main picture on the MJ article has been changed, I like the picture so I don't mind. I was wondering what you think of the picture and what image it portrays of Jackson, it's very hard for me to judge since I generally support him. Does the picture paint him in a good or bad light to the average reader in your opinion. I see a picture of a man that looks happy, like he doesn't have a care in the world, something I don't think we see often with Jackson, he usually seems unhappy. I also see that his plastic surgery has improved considerable since the invincible period of 2001-2002. I know your an neutral person, you would never buy his music but probably give him the benefit of the doubt. Your opinion would be respected, here or at my page. — Realist  2  16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to be WP:NPOV with picture, given how little choice we have of free images. I don't see much a problem with the current one. I actually have several MJ tracks, going right back to "I Want You Back". Meanwhile, I'm going to write the Sandy Denny album "A Boxful of Treasures", get it to WP:GA and then I'm out of here. It's a uphill struggle at the best of times and I resent my best efforts to improve articles being overturned on a whim, as I can find better things to do. I'll be here for about another week, that's all. -- Rodhull andemu  16:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's about pic. You shouldn't leave, you watchlist articles that others don't, I have respect for any admin you still has time to at least attempt to write articles. You have had your successes with articles too remember. — Realist  2  16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

is back. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see he's already been kicked off for a while. -- Rodhull andemu  17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm scratching my head with this one
Image talk:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg - Hmm. — Realist  2  18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously posted to wrong page. Wouldn't worry about it. Let him find the right page. -- Rodhull andemu  18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield
I wonder if you could intercede at Jayne Mansfield where an IP is making a repetative disruptive edit, deleting properly referenced material and replacing it with an unsupported scurilous rumour that has been debunked several times on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.128.184.187 has made the same edit eleven times over recent days. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a week and will keep the article watchlisted. -- Rodhull andemu  10:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

very Terry Wogan?
So the Rang-a-tang site is WP:SPS? Well yes, funnily enough, most websites by bands seem to be produced by those bands, and strangely enough - for publicity purposes!

And it's not WP:RS? Although I'm not quite sure what the problem is, as it's simply repeating a real fact - you can buy that record at your local store.

And the fact is not WP:N? Um, how many other BBC Disc Jockeys have a song written about them, which is then recorded by an established band, and then released commercially and then played repeatedly on the BBC, including on the Wake Up To Wogan show? (Or is that just more WP:SPS)?

Here are a small selection of other sites (including one os the BBC's own) which might suggest that the fact is both WP:N and from multiple WP:RSs


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Do we need platinum sales before you're convinced? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS - per WP:EL then, for spamming, and fails WP:RS as lacking objectivity.
 * WP:N - a quick look shows one or two might establish notability, but you didn't cite them, did you?
 * -- Rodhull andemu  17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * well, that's me told! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection to it going in with reliable, third-party sourcing. I'm told the BBC might be reliable. If John Kettley can have his tribute by A Tribe of Toffs mentioned (although it's strictly unsourced) in his article, so can Wango. -- Rodhull andemu  18:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * John Who?
 * Excatly. "Don't worry- there isn't". Meanwhile the BBC ref is unusable because it will change next week; those blogs are unreliable, but the Express & Star hits all the buttons, so I've added it in & reworded that snippet. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rv the rv and better edit. Spam risk notwithstanding, that original band link allows you to sing-along-a-Tel with the new Woebegone anthem. Cajun meets Helston maaybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cajun, I can handle. "Floral Dance", er, not. If I'm feeling masochistic later I may treat myself, but I've a lot of Sandy Denny to get through first. Musically speaking. -- Rodhull andemu  19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Express & Star link actually hits all the accordian buttons with a video of truely stunning cheesiness. Good luck! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some spamming publicity going on
User:71.108.54.88 and User:Myportal. Check contributions — Realist  2  21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given IP last warning, can't see anything for the named account. Any diffs? -- Rodhull andemu  21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, wonder if they are same person — Realist  2  21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's clear there is some marketing campaign here, and I've given a last warning to User:Myportal. -- Rodhull andemu  21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Defo, they both added it to the 1993 allegations, it has nothing to do with what happened in 1993. Cheer — Realist  2  21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Back at it, he REALLY wants to give that company credit— Realist  2  18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. I did warn him. -- Rodhull andemu  18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did, oh well, back to work. Later :-) — Realist  2  18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson edits
Hi!

Just thought I'd let you know that I've reinstated the Downing Street remarks you removed; as it's an official response to the petition, posted on the Downing Street channel, I reckon it's about as official as they get. I have, however, rephrased the section to clarify that it is an official response, and I've changed the link to go to the page on number10.gov.uk which links to the Youtube video rather than directly to Youtube; hopefully that should help clarify things.

Thanks for the heads-up! Torak (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know full well Parliament is not in session, and Gordon Brown is on holiday, but however much I think about it, I'm hard put to believe that any part of this government has anything approaching a sense of humour. Forgive my cynicism, but the Labour Party and its government are not noted for lightness of touch. I can accept a spoof in that vein from elsewhere, but I remain unconvinced that this bunch of po-faced bunters masquerading as politicians have the imagination to produce such a work. However, I'll leave it for now; suffice it to say that I grew up in the 1960s, when political satire was born in the UK, and perceived as dangerous. For a ruling party to effectively lampoon itself, particularly this one, does not seem credible. However, I'm open to argument. -- Rodhull andemu  23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, it gave me a bit of a shock too. And I agree that it must have been the idea of someone on work experience, or one of the tea ladies or something... but it's a genuine and official petition response, however astonishing and implausible. :-)  Torak (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a good (although not brilliant) piece of satire; however, I think you may be right in assuming that it's not, er, official policy. I'm happy to leave it as it is for now, presumably it'll turn up on Have I Got News for You or Top Gear some time. Ho, ho. -- Rodhull andemu  23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse  for nominating me and  Wizardman  for co-nominating me. &mdash;  JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19 August 2008

Brandon Lang. etc again
Hi, since you helped me out with this the first time I thought I'd ask your opinion on the conversation here. If you think I'm out of line or anything let me know. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Anne Nightingale
Wikipedia is full of information about living persons which the persons would prefer be erased. Policy advises giving only year of birth if concern is expressed. I don't believe she has power of veto on this. In any case, use Talk Page to reach consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Nail, head; head, nail. Policy "advises". I'm quite happy to forward her email to OTRS so that the Foundation can make this official. Leave it with me. -- Rodhull andemu  15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can imagine my surprise that there's anything contentious in my edit. The last thing I expected was to be in a dispute about this.  I think you do need to address the fact that the page's prominent link to the Radio Academy Hall of Fame leads you direct to her full birth date.  Will you be recommending deletion of that link?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Maybe so. She may well have changed her mind about this, and I will email her for confirmation. Meanwhile, I have sought opinion elsewhere. Just because we can source information for a biography does not mean that we should. -- Rodhull andemu  15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

VANDAL!!!
Just kidding, wanted your attention is all. Now for something completely different...I've been copyediting the Strawberry Fields Forever article as a run up to a FAC by User:Kodster. Totally fine with garden party instead of fete, hence the question mark in my edit summary before yours. Aside from that, I just asked Kod a question, I'll copy it here, because there seems to be a discrepancy that probably has a logical explanation:


 * From Strawberry Field: One of Lennon's childhood treats was the garden party that took place each summer in the grounds of Strawberry Field. Lennon's Aunt Mimi recalled: "As soon as we could hear The Salvation Army band starting, John would jump up and down shouting, 'Mimi, come on. We're going to be late


 * From Strawberry Fields Forever: One of Lennon's childhood treats was the garden party held each summer in Calderstones Park every year, where a Salvation Army band played. Lennon's aunt Mimi Smith recalled: "As soon as we could hear the Salvation Army band starting, Lennon would jump up and down shouting, 'Mimi, come on. We're going to be late.' 


 * So which is it, or is it both? Was the garden party in Calderstones Park or on Strawberry Field grounds?  Is one of them inside the other?  Help this poor colonist out.  :-)  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both, IIRC (and I left Liverpool in 1982), Strawberry Fields was on the edge of Calderstones Park so you could say either. -- Rodhull andemu  18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I changed it to add that Calderstones is right next to Strawberry Field. Thanks! Kodster (<font color="#990066">heLLo ) (<font color="#00FF00">Me did that ) 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)