User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/34

Alec Bedser
I hate to disagree with you but there are Ireland, Scotland and Wales national cricket teams. Dear old Bedser is / or rather was an English cricketer; and a bloody good one too. To all passionate cricket lovers in this country, like me, describing someone as a 'British' cricketer is nonsense. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. They haven't penetrated my consciousness, and there is no rational reason why they should have done so. However, I don't remember Wales contesting The Ashes or even the Cricket World Cup. Probably my own fault for not being able to know everything. Rodhull  andemu  00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, I know nothing about anything except music, beer, rugby, sex and cricket. And I know next to nowt about any of them. However, my dear old friend, it is not beyond comprehension that Scotland, Ireland or Wales could appear in the Cricket World Cup. Rather like the Ivory Coast appearing the footy version, but you get my drift.  I get so emotional about the Welsh, Scottish and Irish being so described; but all English have to be British. Alec Bedser was the David Beckham of his day. Except for the cheap and crappy tattoos, gormless wife, being over hyped despite his obvious average ability, and playing in America for the silver shilling.  Bedser did not get knighted for nothing and he was as English as a cup of tea (from India - doh).  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that. Cricketers=sportsmanship & dignity; Footballers=overpaid&wastrels, as far as I'm concerned. Rodhull  andemu  01:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The governing body of the "English" game is... The England and Wales Cricket Bunch of Dodderers and Fogeys (or somesuch). The Welsh national cricket team is the English cricket team. It should also be noted that cricketers from both Scotland ([Mike Denness]] being an obvious example) and Ireland (the current Middlesex player with the first name of Eoin) are able to play for the "English" team - as is South Aftican, Zimbabwe, Australia, Hong Kong, and other former colonies it seems. As for Alec, he played for Surrey and Arsenal Football club at a time when that seemed to confer Englishness fairly automatically. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion would be great!
Hi there! I would like it if you could drop a note on Talk:Harry_Potter. An other editor has a different view on the edit notice in place. Since you participated in the discussion in March, you may be interested. Have a good day! -- Stroppolo talk 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Great idea on the note for the Beatles Associated acts ...and thanks for letting me know that  does not work all over i will stop using it!!Moxy (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The note won't stop people, of course, but at least it gives us some leverage to revert. Rodhull  andemu  21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles discography
Hi Rod, can you put a lock on this discography, please? Please? Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just taken a quick look at it, and it doesn't seem there is that much disruption at present; I've left the last IP a deletion warning and will watchlist the article. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Much obliged, but that's just what I do here. Rodhull  andemu  19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock
= Another one. Neutral. -- Tadijataking 10:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Rodhull  andemu  13:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The 90.199.99.* IP
I see you have dealt with this user quite a lot (and have had to ban him, too). This user has been trolling various articles since at least 2008, and has ignored every single warning (as you might have noticed). The IPs I have caught are the ones below.


 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.31
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.43
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.60
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.78
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.97
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.144
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.197
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.202
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.209
 * Special:Contributions/90.199.99.238


 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.3
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.25
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.108
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.156
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.166
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.200
 * Special:Contributions/90.200.85.249


 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.7
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.29
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.34
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.112
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.131
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.147
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.187
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.197
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.202
 * Special:Contributions/90.201.141.210


 * Special:Contributions/90.211.219.142

A few weeks ago I went through every single IP of the three major ranges above, and came to the conclusion that there are no other active users using the 90.199.99.*, 90.200.85.*, 90.201.141.* ranges.

Unless there are active accounts in those ranges, would it be possible to actually place a range block? Nymf hideliho! 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first three are /24 ranges, which would together block 768 anon users. There's little we can do about the last one, but those rangeblocks would at least make it more difficult to get an IP address. If I block anon-only, that would not prevent registered accounts from editing. Does that sound OK? Rodhull  andemu  17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Anon-block only on those three class C ranges sounds like a great idea. Bummed I didn't think of this a year or two ago. Thanks for all the work you do on here. Nymf hideliho! 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Soft-blocked for six months. That might get the message across. Let me know if he comes back. Rodhull  andemu  21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh
You might like to not tag regular contributors, not accuse people of ownership when you're clearly making a lot more revert-tpe edits yourself, to try not to create article content forks, and to not repeatedly edit war revert unreferenced, off-topic material into articles; this can really only give you a bad reputation.- Wolfkeeper  18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only with you. The fact still remains that your version does not have consensus, the material is mostly sourced, and many other editors have reverted your edits. If you're not happy, please take it to WP:ANI, but also consider your reputation, which precedes you. Rodhull  andemu  18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi

I just wanted to apologise for the incident at User talk:Tiwi1890, believe it or not I've only just seen the messages on their talk page as it's not on my watchlist. The way I always do things on Wikipedia, if someone vandalises a page at first I just issue them with a welcome template but if they commit the same edit again I read that as vandalism and warn them appropriately. I have apologised to the user on my talk page though for the template sounding harsh. Do you have any suggestions how I can stop incidents like this happening in future? --5 albert square (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Their first edit was unsourced, and their second was sourced, but not very well. Most new editors don't understand about RS, but it seemed that they were heading in the right direction. I'd have dropped a uw-unsourced2 template, with a note that imdb isn't regarded as reliable for biog details. Looking at the diffs might have helped here. Rodhull  andemu  20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hope you're well :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Rodhull  andemu  21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should also be noted, for future reference, in regard to this specific name issue with Demi Moore, that any sources here would have to be in the form of an interview or something similar. (I have scoured the net myself without finding anything where she confirms being born "Demetria.") If you read the talk page, she actually denies being born with this name. It all seems to stem from a rumor that has been going on since the 90s which everyone now treats as "fact." Nymf hideliho! 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I had a look around myself, but she should be the best source for this, but myths have a tendency to spread out of all proportion on teh interwebs. At least here we try to take a principled stance n sourcing. Rodhull  andemu  21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another vandal
Hello Rodhull, if I may draw your attention to one IP and his edits to date. They may look innocent and in good faith but I assure you that this is yet another disruptive editor who is POV pushing (ie. there is no Macedonian language because the Macedonians are Greek, etc.), you get the picture. Yes it's political I am afraid but as anyone can see, there is an article on the Macedonian language where this user is free to take his views on the talk page. Instead, he has been edit warring on Yugoslavia and I fear that if left alone, he will continue to do so. He has been warned atleast twice. If you could formally warn him, or even block him for a short time, I would be grateful. Thanks. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is a personal attack on good faith editor Angelo De La Paz, a reference to "moron", surely not acceptable. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I also contend that from the time of this edit, the IP has now violated the 3RR. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 48 hours for edit-warring. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Rodhull. Sorry to bend your ear with the same boring topic but it might just be a good idea to raise the protection level on Yugoslavia because it seems that the user has escaped the block by somehow adjusting his range. I don't know how it's done, but he's still about, see this. Thanks. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for a month. Perhaps this guy will get out into the open air and get some sunshine instead. Rodhull  andemu  17:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope so too. Cheers for that. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Black Velvets
I'm a bit puzzled here. You recently PRODded this article for the second (!) time in a month. Aside from the invalidity of the second prod, I found enough coverage and evidence of notability to convince me that an article is warranted, including two UK chart hits. I've indicated what I've found on the article's talk page. I could also search the UK News archive which would likely find more UK newspaper coverage. The article is in a poor state but can be improved significantly. I'm prepared to do this but may not be able to do it for a while due to a number of similar cases where it looks like I'll have to source articles. If you still have concerns over notability, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know. I've recently had a similar one go to AFD to try to force me to improve the article which didn't impress me. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd forgotten about the previous PROD, and I did check the Talk page but not the history. Either way, it is a very poor article and does us no credit. My view is that if these articles aren't important enough to their creators, they should go rather than be a burden upon the rest of us, who have better things to do with our time. My trip through Google didn't inspire me with confidence that this band satisfy WP:BAND, but if you want to take it on in your own good time, that's fine by me. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Emilehiggins
It is clear that User:Emilehiggins is the same person as User:Eheskey and User:Emilewilliamivanhoeheskey, both of whom have been blocked for repeated vandalism. Could you keep an eye on him/her. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk)
 * I've indef-blocked as a sockpuppet and vandalism-only account. Rodhull  andemu  18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He has returned just with an IP address as User:89.101.90.42.  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IP hard-blocked for a month. It's an NTL address, and these are usually statically assigned to a single user, so I guess we have some peace and quiet for a while. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhull  andemu  18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So, I was the one who was "not learning"?
I'm copying this response of mine here, just in case you missed it. I believe that several proud Admins, you among them, also need to learn. My petulance? And what about the issues I pointed at, which you completely ignored? Take heed, youngster, and pay some respect to your elders in the future. You wrote the first paragraph here:


 * The fact that you are not asking for an unblock is persuasive, and your petulance does you no favours. It's up to you whether you do that, but while you continue to proselytise here without asking for an unblock, the more likely it is that your access to this page will be removed, and you will then have to make a case to the Arbitration Committee. You have the right to an independent review of your block by an uninvolved administrator, and that is where your next step lies. But whingeing is unlikely to get you unblocked. Rodhull  andemu  02:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To what I replied:

The above is exemplary of the motives why thousands of formerly enthusiastic and valuable wikipedians have abandoned the project altogether. One would expect Wikipedia Administrators on average to be just, impartial, benevolent individuals, willing to help in solving disputes for the benefit of a common cause. In addition, one would expect them to be individuals of high intelligence and ethical values. Cases like (for example) what Admin EncMstr did to editor JazzCarnival (see User_talk:JazzCarnival), namely, to block him permanently as a result of a confrontation with User:Aspects (a.k.a. "The Tireless Destroyer" as he proudly and shamelessly announces in his User Page), one of many that same ********* has caused with no sign of anyone willing to discipline him, is a clear sign that the above expectations are a fiction. I will not use adjectives to qualify User:EncMstr, as doing so would no doubt be regarded, again, as a personal attack. But I guess I'm entitled to believe that's just an example of an arbitrary, totalitarian, even despotic attitude which I find absolutely unacceptable. I wonder if Mr. Wales is aware of the phenomenon, and of the damage it is causing.

Who loses?

One gets the feeling that Admins somewhere got the notion that contributors have a constant, unfaltering craving to create or edit articles, as a vital necessity, so that blocking them ought to be a terrible loss, a tough, almost unbearable penalty. Far from the truth. So, blocking individual editors does not harm them (us) in any way. But it does harm Wikipedia. As I said before, valuable contributors are routinely reprimanded or otherwise discouraged, while dubious editors with dubious motives and still more dubious "contributions" are prized. Obviously, though Wikipedia is already lurching, it will not capsize, as it has enough critical mass and speed already; but --it will always be far from an ideal, will always lack luster, authority, and reliability. That is why I already quit as an editor, so your threats to me are meaningless.

You have said that I was not getting the message. Conversely, I have no illusions about the effects of the above reasoning. My experience with, say, traffic policemen shows that when intelligence is lacking, other qualities usually emerge as a substitute for it, as we are witnessing here in Wikipedia (authoritarianism, pontification, sticking to "the book", that is, to the rules (disregarding even the WP:IAR and WP:BURO directives), punitive practices, etc., --not necessarily for the good of the situation, or of the project, or of the majority (no personal offence intended). It's a pity. Au revoir, --AVM (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you weren't getting the message. Abusing other editors creates a poisonous atmosphere here, making collaboration difficult. That is why it is castigated. Au revoir? I hope not. Goodbye. Rodhull andemu  13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Good riddance, then. --AVM (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
What are you doing regarding the Ahmedinenjad article?
 * Material added to articles requires to be supported by reliable sources to ensure it can be verified. This is not negotiable. Rodhull  andemu  15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Drop the god-complex, what are you afraid of, the truth?
 * See WP:TRUTH. The criterion for inclusion of anything here is not truth, but verifiability, as I have already advised. And kindly drop the personal attacks. Rodhull  andemu  16:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Rod its nice to talk to again it been a while. Hey thanks for your support through my trials and tribulations whether it was Honorific titles in Pop( trying not to get my article deleted) and the sock puppetry thing. You have been extremely supportive. Thank You The Almighty King (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Rodhull  andemu  19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete Revert on Adrian Chiles?
Your edit looks a bit odd. My guess is you wanted, but feel free to adjust as needed. shellac (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know how that happened. Thanks for fixing it. Rodhull  andemu  21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock, again
= Once a week! :) -- Tadijataking 21:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Rodhull  andemu  23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a right to remove my words
Why are you creating drama on WP:ANI? I made a mistake. I am removing my own comments. You "admins" are all the same. You want to create drama, not fix it. Factomancer (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. I repeat: if you wish to withdraw your complaint, fine. But deleting the comments of other is vandalism. Rodhull  andemu  16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

legacy and influence
Hey Rod I know you always work hard on the Mj article and so I know you and a few others should have a say on the talk page whether the section legacy and influence should stay the same or be trimmed, removed, or have it's own page?. The Almighty King (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton
Aye, I know, but it's worth a try. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why some people want to be racist in the face of success; that's, to me, an extremely old-fashioned attitude, and should not be given any credence here at all. If it starts up again, I would have have no problem with semi-protecting indefinitely. Rodhull  andemu  01:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clegg
Hi Rod, would you consider extending the BLP of Clegg until after the election in comparrison with Brown and Cameron as it only seems fair to protect all three from vandalism, especially in the pre election run up. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of looking at this. There seems to be no reason not to extend the same protection to Clegg. Rodhull  andemu  16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, thanks for looking at that, best. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu Personal life
Hello Mr.Rodhullandemu, Why not add a personal life, see, I did personal life, add them to the article, for all to see, ok thank you my frinds.--ER-HP-11 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They were all copyright violations from IMDB. Rodhull  andemu  21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Now I understand, I do not know Chace Watson, Thank you for the advice, my brother, Goodbye .--ER-HP-11 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI case
Hi Rodhullandemu, given your recent applied protection, do you have any issue with me closing Sockpuppet_investigations/Blain_Nelder? Naturally he/she won't be able to target that anymore so he/she may just give up, but worst case scenario, a new case can always be opened. I don't see much benefit to leaving it open right now. Thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. I think we've had enough of him for one evening. Rodhull  andemu  21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Let It Be... Naked
Hi Rod, can you move this article from Let It Be... Naked (this has the three periods connected to each other with just one click of the mouse) to Let It Be... Naked (this has it where we actually press the computer keyboard (period) button three times. This follow the same pattern as Hi... We're The Miracles. Thanks my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ no problem. Rodhull  andemu  22:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was quick, thank you so much! Cheers my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Chace Watson
I concurred at the SPI report. Block away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rodhull  andemu  22:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to mark a few of his creations as "db-banned". I can't take care of those myself.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go through his contribs; I've also asked for his Commons account to be blocked, since they've had trouble with him before. And, you'll be able to delete banned editors' contribs yourself once your RfA passes! Rodhull  andemu  23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You should read WP:CSD more carefully: any file created by an editor evading a block falls under "db-banned". It's because, per WP:Block, "If a user is blocked indefinitely, he or she is considered a banned user until an administrator unblocks the user. I can't make you honor the speedies, but if I get the bit, I think I would wheel-warring if I did them myself.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CSD is a means to an end, a mechanism; it isn't a means of punishing the encyclopedia by rejecting useful content merely because it has been provided by a blocked or banned user, and I think it leaves an admin with a discretion with regard to deletion. I considered the images, and decided that on balance, they could stay, since I saw no point in downloading them and reuploading under my own name, because that would be pointless bureaucracy. Adminship can be subtle yet pragmatic sometimes. Rodhull  andemu  23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

75.170.161.149
I am bringing this to your attention as you were the protector of the WGGH page. I also posted this to User:Toddst1's page, but he is now semi-retired. He was the blocker on 75.170.161.149 previously. The user has been vandalizing the WGGH page from many 75.170. IPs. At present the user is now using 75.170.193.114 and continues to vandalize the same page. Is there anyway to lock down the WGGH page and range block the 75.170. range? I think this would keep most of the vandalism at bay. The last block the user had was 1 month. Is there anyway to make this rangeblock a 2 month'er in the spirit of the escalation of the blocks? Thanks. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a /17, which would block up to 32768 users, so I don't think a rangeblock is a good idea. I've semi-protected for three months however, since the article seems to get little traffic apart from him. Rodhull  andemu  20:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, that should do the trick. Thanks for your help and sorry for not signing.  Probably the second time I haven't signed ever. :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not...
...there's some truth behind this edit. See this article if you're interested. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed. Still needs a source, however. Rodhull  andemu  18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources out there, but unless he's actually nominated to the position it's just people vollying names around and shouldn't really be included. Just thought you might get a kick out of knowing there was substance to the claim. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceman
It was the usertalk page that needed restoring, not the userpage. Now we've got a circular redirect. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed that, but circular redirects are fixed by some bot or other. If I live long enough, I'll fix it myself. Cheers.  Rodhull  andemu  00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you restored the userpage instead of the talk page. In RTV, the userpage is deleted and the talk page kept (unless it's MfD, which is very rare). DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well maybe it's not clear what should happen here. It's not a standard WP:RTV, but I will bow to your superior knowledge here. But I still think that the Talk page should be blanked as a courtesy. Rodhull  andemu  01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanked by all means, but usertalk pages are not speedy deleted. The userpage can be deleted no problem. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly rocket science it is not; but at the end of a particularly difficult day, here and elsewhere, and although I still try to get things right here, sometimes the complexity becomes too much to handle. Sorry if I am human rather than an automaton. The demands on my time are great; however, I will try to address your concerns. Rodhull  andemu  01:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just delete the userpage and restore the talk page. No-one ever asked for the userpage to be undeleted, and the initial deletion of the talk page was wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all fixed now. DuncanHill (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And in other old news...
Hey Rod, FYI only, you blocked a suspected sockpuppet a while ago, User:Terry Tells The Truth: this edit suggests it's a sock of User:Sinbad Barron. Thanks for blocking, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and tagged as such, but not much point doing anything else.  Rodhull  andemu  22:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I called it old news. I guess this is a "for the record"--and you gotta hand it to Sinbad: he's persistent. Irritating and with a couple of weird fetishes (height), that too. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Man 89
Hi. I saw that the account had been blocked, but I thought that I would reply to his message anyway. The question on my talk page appeared to be legitimate - I had previously rejected a speedy deletion request concerning the article - so I thought I would give an honest answer, the block notwithstanding. I figured the editor would probably see the answer at some point. I apologise if I have stepped on your toes. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to convey the latter in the slightest, but I suppose it's fair that he might want to comment on the AfD even if blocked- but my experience is that he never asks for an unblock and merely takes another sock out of the drawer. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

AWB Update
My username has changed, and I wanted to see how I go about getting AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage updated so I can continue using AWB? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd wait until your edits are reassigned, per User:NihonJoe, then file a request, linking you old username- I can then validate and replace permissions on your old name with those on your new name. Best way to check this is to file a request as User:AnmaFinotera and use the Preview button to view your editcount. If it hasn't updated, you may have to wait a day or so. Hope that helps. Rodhull  andemu  23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief, my mistake. I didn't look at the name change closely enough (I'm getting fagged out here). I'll do it right now. Rodhull  andemu  23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Party
What is going on there? Do you support the existance of that article? Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In its original form, I would have speedied it as an unsourced BLP/attack page. However, a quick look in Google tells me that the term has been around for about 18 years, so it might be sustainable as an article, if sourced. In its current form, even without the BLP issues, it's a straightforward attack page, since I read into BLP that it applies to groups of people (such as rock groups), so it could apply to political parties, especially in the run-up to a General Election. I think WP:IAR might apply, although I will give reasons n the creator's Talk page (although I do detect an agenda of some sort there). Agree? Rodhull  andemu  00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. I think if anyone tried to add it to the Conservative Party article it would get short shift as well. Its a derogatory nickname and not a NEO. I would like to see it not be recreated, so perhaps it should be AFDed or a merge? I just looked on the actual party article and the nickname is not there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD has been contested, for no particular reason, but it has never been WP:CSD'd, as it should have been. I'll do that now, on the basis of a7, g10, and WP:IAR. Rodhull  andemu  00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure.... we have this Loony left ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted Nasty Party. However, Loony Left is at least sourced and needs to go to WP:AFD for an examination of reliability of sources and POV. At least it's not a redirect to New Labour! Rodhull  andemu  00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rod. It was a horrid little attack stub. Good riddance to it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoesExcerpt.ogg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoesExcerpt.ogg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Dawnseeker2000  00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Nick
Imagine if we had not protected it, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen a lot of vandalism to Labour Party (UK) recently, so I've semi-d that until after the election, to bring it into line with Conservative Party. I've watched Liberal Democrats and will protect that if necessary. Meanwhile, due to past vandalism Clegg is the only leader's article I'm watching. Rodhull  andemu  23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Full support for that, I am only watching the living people as that is my bag so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rename WP:LAWYER to WP:Wikifinagling
I have created a redirect "WP:Wikifinagle" to avoid the term "lawyering" with that essay (I have discussed it for renaming):
 * See: Wikipedia_talk:Wikilawyering

If you have time, could you reply about the chances of renaming that term. It is difficult to get some legal-minded editors to remain on WP, after facing edit-wars, when they then discover the offensive "WP:LAWYER" essay has been used for years. Is there any groundswell, yet, to rename that? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll need a little time to think about that. Have you considered what to do with the original names, which would end up as redirects, and still be used until everybody got used to the new terminology? Rodhull  andemu  23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The main focus would be adjust the essay to not dwell on the word "lawyer" while describing all those highly devious, unscrupulous actions. I was stunned when I re-read that essay, as to how caustic the offensive phrases had been, so I gave the analogy as connecting the term "graduate student" to an offensive term wiki-student, who would be an inept, bumbling newcomer with no sense (perhaps I should have added: who also cheats by writing false article text). Once the offensive essay has been reworded, here are the current wikilink totals:
 * - Total of 2544 pages link to WP:LAW or similar.
 * - Total of 573 "User_talk" pages link to WP:LAW (or similar).
 * Including archive pages, less than 600 user-talk pages are using the old term, so it might fade away easily, compared to 12 million registered usernames. Again, I see the major offense inside the essay, while the word "wikilawyering" per se means very little, until people actually read the vitriol inside that page. Perhaps, in the analogy, I should add "a wiki-student often tries to trap his WP mentor into a 1-month block" as a full comparison. Have you re-read WP:LAW WP:LAWYER recently? -Wikid77 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversial changes
- persists in changing genres and song track times in spite of being reverted and asked on his talk page to stop. Please have a look. Thanks.  MPFC 1969  23:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a last warning. If it happens again, please let me know.r Rodhull  andemu  23:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jackson 5
Hi, Rod, can you take a look at this please, because it was just vandalised again two-minutes after you fixed it, and this anon user just came back from being blocked. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Roiwaerpawoerphsdfwerfewwaabbgfhjhg
I have seen this user pop up a few times on different accounts tonight, as they have done in the past. Is there anyway to get a checkuser on these and see if there are anymore hidden and what range they are coming from? -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to reply earlier; I think if there were any other sleepers he would have used them by now, so a checkuser would probably not throw up any more. Obviously if he returns, he will be spotted immediately. Rodhull  andemu  15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is someone messing with your images?
Are you aware of ? Your DJing image doesn't look quite right either! Mannafredo (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vandalism undid by Kingpin13. Mannafredo (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, but I see it's happened again. Rodhull  andemu  15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to pester but...
...Could I possibly trouble you to issue warnings to vandals if for no other reason than so others who come across them can escalate the warnings. your friend is certainly making a nuisance of himself. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I shouldn't revert while trying to eat a meal, but there's no problem with kicking off the warnings at an appropriately high level.  Rodhull  andemu  20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Better than not reverting at all, I suppose! I've notched the warnings up but they seem to have stopped- no doubt they'll be back on another IP tomorrow! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LS
He has a massive disruptive conflict of interest against this wikipedia, block him Rod, press the button, full support. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Vega birthdate
As you may know Alan Vega's birthdate is currently listed as 1948. There appears to conflicting evidence - the official book - versus the currently sourced Blast First Press Release. I'm trying to build consensus for a change. Please add comments on Talk :Alan Vega. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mikal (UK artist)


The article Mikal (UK artist) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; although I only moved this article, I have no particular interest in its survival. Rodhull  andemu  19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, then I'll simply note that Mikal (US artist) and Michael Gurry will be treading the same path. Sorry to smudge your page without good reason. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Can't argue with any of these. Rodhull  andemu  19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

George Harrison
Hello Rodhullandemu. I saw your edit summaries on this article today. The IP geolocates to Los Angeles CA. That means that it is possible that it could be an incarnation of one of these Sockpuppet investigations/Dmerkurev/Archive. You may already be aware of this and it looks like the IP has stopped, but I thought that I would make you aware of it in case it might be useful to you in the future. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd forgotten about him. Rodhull  andemu  20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment
I reckon there's a line between competence and out-and-out-being a prat. For the latter, there should be a "stuff 800V up their broadband connection" button, open not only to admins. Maybe like rollback - "This user has break-a-prat's-broadband-connection rights". Cheers. Tonywalton Talk 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sorry if I trod on your toes, but I thought his post-block comments warranted uprating to indef. However, if he is savvy enough to follow the procedures and make a suitable unblock request, I'd give it serious consideration. Rodhull  andemu  01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. No toe-treading at all. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)